(cross posted at Showcase)

Mac Diva from the blog Mac-a-ronies has posted a half-hearted endorsement of the Showcase at Blogcritics.org. It is an interesting article that demands a response.

Firstly let me clarify a misunderstanding. The Showcase differs from its predecessor in that it is NOT a contest. I encourage people to link to posts they like but there will be no weekly "winner" at this showcase. It is literally a display of new blogs and nothing more than that.

However the following is the core of the article:

My reservations about a revived New Weblog Showcase are based on what blogs really are, instead of unrealistic bloggers' delusions. The blogosphere has developed into a place where a few people with grandiose, often bullying personalities, have gathered sycophants to them. The networks of sycophants trade links back and forth among themselves. Based on this totally artificial construct, bloggers in the networks develop a sense of importance completely out of touch with their actual status in society. The members of a given network also regurgitate the brain droppings of their 'great leader' on demand. As a result, the blogosphere is an echo chamber of the know-nothings much of the time...

The risk with this contest is that it will become another way for the networks to support their participant, regardless of the quality of entries submitted. Awful entries will win votes because they have been smiled on by one of the larger networks. Excellent entries will fall by the wayside because the independent bloggers lack cheering sections. The results will say everything about the organization of the blogosphere, and nothing about thinking and writing well.

So, it is with ambivalence that I link to Simon's New Weblog Showcase and urge people who qualify to consider participating. There are independent bloggers who post entries that are well-researched and ably written. But, based on what I've observed in the blogosphere, we are a minority. If new bloggers adhere to basic standards of journalism, I welcome them. However, there are more than enough bad bloggers already.

Firstly the showcase itself can be compared to a trade fair. It is a display of products (blogs) that may not otherwise receive exposure given the large number of blogs. In true capitalistic fashion the market will dictate which of these blogs will gain a wider audience and which will not. Some will find a particular niche and others will attempt for a broader audience. The Showcase will not make a blog successful. Only consistent and good content by the blogger themselves can do that. The Showcase can help bring a blog broader exposure, something akin to advertising.

The Blogosphere itself is a microcosm of the internet. Some sites are obscure either by design or due to limited appeal. Others have a broader appeal and wider readership. A very few dominate their category, much like Amazon or Ebay. Very few blogs even pretend to be a replacement for established media. They are not disseminators of information and fact nor rivals to big media. Some, and again this is a limited category, act as an adjunct to media. Some act as monitors, finding fault with big media and its reporting of news. Some act as fact checkers, reflecting the author's particular expertise and bringing it to bear for the wider world to consider. Very few pretend to be objective reporters of fact. What blogs do bring to bear is almost immediate punditry and opinions. If others finds certain blogs that reflect or challenge them they will gain in popularity. Blogs gain and lose readership depending on that core ideal of serving the readers what they want. It should be noted that many blogs are not written for an audience, but rather as an outlet for creative writing or opinions to be read by none or all. As I have already said, most do not pretend to be "journalism" so it is difficult to understand why blogs need to adhere to so-called journalistic standards.

That's the thing about the blogosphere. It's a marketplace of ideas and opinions. Like any market some sites are popular and are mass-market products. Others are products filling particular needs. Many of these blogs do not survive for long in the harsh world of the blogosphere as it takes sustained effort to provide content consistently. The ones that succeed are because they have found their market and cater to that market, be it large or small.

As for the charge of incentuousness, the blogosphere is guilty. But again that is to be expected. Firstly the blogosphere acts as its own police force. If someone, especially a "big" blogger, posts an item that is factually incorrect you can be guaranteed that someone will pick up on it quickly. Secondly the blogosphere reflects what happens in Big Media but in a more honest fashion. Few newspapers or TV news shows will admit it openly, but the news agenda tends to be set by the very biggest in the media game. Others follow, often syndicating reports from the dominant players. This is not a surprise. The big players are big for a reason and have the resources to do these stories. Alternatively they have a particular angle or access that others must necessarily rely on (for example Al-Jazeera). This is the big media equivalent of linking, except it is nowhere near as obvious. Thirdly the blogosphere as a whole is far greater than the sum of its parts. The constant linkage is its greatest strength and leads the reader direct to the source, or to alternative opinions, or instant responses, or responses to responses. It is the written form of that most basic human interaction: conversation.

Blogging is still in its infancy. Even given the speed of adoption in the world of IT it is not yet significant compared to greater internet use. But this is rapidly changing. There has been fast growth in readership, blog numbers and influence. Don't believe me? Howard Dean, lauded for his use of the internet in his campaign, maintained a blog. Leading politicians have followed this lead. The Democrats are giving bloggers credentials for their convention. Blogs have forced the New York Times and the LA Times to make corrections and blogs were directly responsible for bring the Trent Lott story to the fore. Blogs' readership may not be broad but largely consists of IT professionals, political types (including politicians themselves as well as political junkies), news hounds, journalists, media types and academics. As a whole this group could largely be called the intellectual class. With such an influential audience blogs can punch far above their weight in readership simply by those whom they influence. Any reader of blogs will find, as I have, that many issues and ideas are opened up to them that they might never normally have considered or even come across. It is this broad exposure in the marketplace of ideas that makes reading blogs such a worthwhile experience. It also acts as a feedback loop: those blogs that enhance the experience develop a greater readership and extend their influence, bringing in more readers and linkage.

In the end, however, the influence of blogs is only as great as the readership allows. Most readers of blogs are aware of the limitations of a single person or small group of people maintaining a website of content on a part-time and voluntary basis. Some are moving to a semi-professional basis such as Josh Marshall and Andrew Sullivan. However these types will always be in the minority. Most blogs are labour of love, not methods of financial gain. When reading with all of this in mind blogs are enriching, stimulating and broadening experiences. They should be enjoyed for what they are while bearing in mind the necessary limitations of their form. Like any modern market the reader has the ultimate tool in exercising their discretion: they can read as much or as little (even none) as they like. It is their loss.

As for me, I will continue to enjoy this new medium and feel flattered to be a very small part of it. The blogosphere will find its place in time and it is fascinating to watch it unfold. Most of all I love the diversity, the broad spectrum of opinion and the instantaneous cut and thrust of it all. If you don't, the newspapers and TV remain there for you to use instead.

UPDATE: read the comments for some more great insights.